Tea is the most popular drink in the world other than water. It beats out coffee and beer, which hold second and third place.

May 21 is designated as International Tea Day by the United Nations, marking the significance and value of the drink globally, not just economically but culturally too.

Tea plays a meaningful role in many societies. From Tibetan po cha to a good old English breakfast brew, tea is considered a unifying and hospitable beverage.

While the exact origins of tea are unknown, it is believed to have originated in northeast India, northern Myanmar and southwest China, according to the UN. There is evidence that tea was consumed in China 5,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest beverages in the world.

How to say tea around the world

Across the globe, nearly all words for tea can be derived from the root words “cha” or “te”.

In many parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the word for tea is derived from cha.

In Mandarin: 茶 (chá)
In Arabic: شاي (shāy)
In Turkish: çay
In Hindi: चाय (chāi)

In Western Europe, many countries use some derivative of te. For example, “tea” was introduced into the English language as a result of trade routes in the East. The word was taken from China, where it was pronounced “te” in the Hokkien dialect.

In English: tea
In French: thé
In Spanish: té
In German: tee

Who produces the most tea globally?

The tea plant is usually grown in tropical and subtropical climates where its cultivation and processing support the livelihoods of millions of people.

According to the latest data from the Tea and Coffee Trade Journal‘s Global Tea Report, China produces nearly half of the world’s tea (48 percent). India is the second largest producer, accounting for 20 percent of world production, followed by Kenya (8 percent), Turkiye (4 percent) and Sri Lanka (3 percent).

The rest of the world accounts for 17 percent of tea production globally.

How much tea is consumed daily worldwide?

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), world tea consumption reached 6.5 million tonnes in 2022, growing from previous years.

Consumption in China, the largest consumer of tea, reached 3 million tonnes in 2022, representing 46 percent of global consumption.

India, the second largest consumer, accounted for a share of nearly 18 percent at 1.16 million tonnes in 2022, followed by Turkiye with 250,000 tonnes, Pakistan with 247,000 tonnes and Russia with 133,000 tonnes.

According to the FAO, tea consumption expanded by 2 percent in 2022 compared with 2021 and further increased in 2023.

However, tea consumption in countries in Europe and North America has been declining due to increasing competition from other beverages while for Russia, tea imports have been negatively impacted by the war in Ukraine.

Five odd teas around the world

To mark this year’s International Tea Day, here are five somewhat unusual teas from around the world and how to make them:

Butter tea (po cha)

Found in: Tibet and other Himalayan regions

What’s odd?: It’s in the name. Made with yak butter, black tea and salt, butter tea is broth-like. Apparently, there is a tradition where the host will refill your cup with butter tea until you refuse or until they stop filling it, signalling it’s time for you to leave.

Kombucha – is it tea?

Found in: China, Japan and the Koreas

What’s odd?: Kombucha is considered a tea. It’s a fermented tea made using a jelly-like SCOBY (symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast). Kombucha fans often name their SCOBYs, treat them like pets and pass them to friends like family heirlooms.

Butterfly pea flower tea

Found in: Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

What’s odd?: It is known as blue tea because of its colour, which then changes to purple when lemon juice is added. It’s caffeine free and made from a concoction of floral petals from the blue pea flower.

Baobab leaf tea

Found in: sub-Saharan Africa

What’s odd?: Baobab leaf tea is traditionally used in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa as a mild herbal remedy and nutritional drink.

Unlike most herbal teas, which are often floral or fruity, baobab leaf tea has a mildly earthy or even slightly bitter taste, a bit like spinach water.

Guava leaf tea

Found in: Philippines, Central America, Africa

What’s odd?: The tea is made from the leaves of the guava tree, which have an earthy flavour. In Philippine culture, it is said to have medicinal benefits for soothing stomach aches and bathing wounds.

The United States says a new Israeli-approved organisation – the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – is the key to resolving the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, but it already is receiving its fair share of criticism.

The GHF says it is going to start operations before the end of May. United Nations officials and humanitarian groups say it will not have the ability to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza as a result of Israel’s two-month-long blockade.

Instead, the aid groups that have been working in Gaza point out that they have the capacity to bring in food and other humanitarian supplies – if only Israel would let them.

So what is the GHF, and why is the situation in Gaza so desperate? Here’s everything you need to know:

What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

Officially independent, the GHF is an Israeli- and US-backed body that plans to distribute aid in the Gaza Strip.

One in five people in Gaza currently face starvation due to the Israeli blockade of food and aid while 93 percent are experiencing acute food shortages, according to a UN-backed assessment released last week.

Under increasing international pressure to allow in aid, Israel has sought to find a solution that it says prevents aid from falling into the hands of the Palestinian group Hamas. Humanitarian organisations say the vast majority of food and other supplies reaches Gaza’s civilian population and is not diverted to fighters.

The GHF will be overseen by Jake Wood, a US military veteran who ran Team Rubicon, an organisation that distributed humanitarian aid during natural disasters.

What’s the plan for delivering the aid?

Through the GHF, Palestinians in Gaza would receive a “basic amount of food”.

The initial plan was announced last Wednesday with a timeline of about two weeks before it was up and running.

It’s still unclear how the GHF will be funded, but the foundation says it will set up “secure distribution sites” to feed 1.2 million people in Gaza before expanding to feed every Palestinian in the territory.

It says it will coordinate with the Israeli military while security would be provided by private military contractors.

Why is the GHF being criticised?

The GHF initiative has been widely panned by aid groups and the UN.

The UN and humanitarian aid agencies say they already have the means to distribute desperately needed aid and alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. The GHF, on the other hand, is seen by critics as a way of politicising aid and not having the experience or capacity to bring aid to more than two million people.

The GHF “restricts aid to only one part of Gaza while leaving other dire needs unmet”, UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher said at the Security Council last week. “It makes aid conditional on political and military aims. It makes starvation a bargaining chip. It is cynical sideshow. A deliberate distraction. A fig leaf for further violence and displacement.”

The UN and aid groups say the GHF plan violates basic humanitarian principles.

“We are concerned by the proposed aid mechanism for Gaza and are deeply worried that it will not allow for humanitarian aid to be distributed in a manner consistent with core humanitarian principles of impartiality, humanity, and independence,” a statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said. “The ICRC cannot work under any mechanism that doesn’t allow us to uphold the principles and our modalities of work.”

Eleven humanitarian and human rights organisations signed a statement in which they “unequivocally reject the establishment” of the GHF, calling it:

“A project led by politically connected Western security and military figures, coordinated in tandem with the Israeli government, and launched while the people of Gaza remain under total siege. It lacks any Palestinian involvement in its design or implementation.”

That lack of Palestinian involvement, coupled with Israel’s approval for the project and the planned presence of the Israeli military “on the perimeter” of the distribution sites, according to US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, raises Palestinian suspicions that the establishment of the GHF will give even more power to Israel over aid distribution in Gaza.

Why is aid not reaching Gaza?

Israel is blocking it.

Israel began preventing the entry of all food and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza on March 2 during a ceasefire, which it unilaterally broke on March 18.

Even before the blockade, Israel restricted the amount of aid that could come in, and some Israeli protesters also blocked and destroyed aid.

The situation has reached dire levels with the World Food Programme saying 70,000 children need urgent treatment for “acute malnutrition”.

How would the GHF displace Palestinians?

The UN said the GHF would weaponise aid by threatening the mass displacement of Palestinians.

Initial aid distribution sites would operate only out of southern and central Gaza, which the UN warned could lead to the displacement of Palestinians in northern Gaza as they are forced to move south for food and other aid.

“Humanitarian aid should not be politicized nor militarized,” the ICRC statement said. “This erodes the neutrality required to ensure assistance is delivered based solely on need, not political or military agendas.”

The initiative has also been labelled by many in the humanitarian sector as insufficient.

“Even if implemented, the plan’s proposed aid volumes fall short of the immense scale of needs in Gaza,” according to the ICRC. “The level of need right now is overwhelming, and aid needs to be allowed to enter immediately and without impediment.”

Gaza currently has 400 distribution points, and the ability and know-how to distribute aid effectively exists. With only a few distribution points under the GHF, people may be forced to walk long distances and carry heavy rations.

“The Problem is Not Logistics,” the statement from the 11 humanitarian groups read. “It Is Intentional Starvation.”

Enough. We demand rapid, safe, and unimpeded access to starving civilians in Gaza.

We have a plan. We have thousands of trucks of food at the border. Let us in. Let us work.https://t.co/J55f8shIEU pic.twitter.com/bTmcAMbG0e

— Tom Fletcher (@UNReliefChief) May 16, 2025

People with disabilities or who are injured would struggle to navigate the terrain and reach distribution points. The roads in Gaza have been badly damaged over the past 19 months of war, and the intensity of Israel’s latest military operation in Gaza is only making things more difficult for Palestinians there.

Furthermore, the GHF’s assertions that it is independent and transparent have been criticised by aid groups.

“Despite branding itself as ‘independent’ and ‘transparent,’ the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation would be wholly dependent on Israeli coordination and operates via Israeli-controlled entry points, primarily the Port of Ashdod and the Kerem Shalom/Karem Abu Salem crossing,” the statement by the 11 aid groups read.

While Hanan Salah, Human Rights Watch’s associate director for the Middle East and North Africa, didn’t comment specifically on the GHF, she said allowing “a basic amount of food” into the Gaza Strip was “complicity in using starvation as a method of warfare”.

The Baltic nation is seeking damages, including compensation for border reinforcement costs.

Lithuania has initiated legal proceedings against Belarus at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing its neighbour of orchestrating a refugee and migrant crisis by facilitating the smuggling of people across their border.

“The Belarusian regime must be held legally accountable for orchestrating the wave of illegal migration and the resulting human rights violations,” Lithuanian Justice Minister Rimantas Mockus said in a statement on Monday.

“We are taking this case to the International Court of Justice to send a clear message: no state can use vulnerable people as political pawns without facing consequences under international law.”

The case, submitted to the ICJ in The Hague, centres on alleged violations by Belarus of the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said attempts to resolve the issue through bilateral talks failed and it has evidence showing direct involvement by the Belarusian state in organising refugee and migrant flows, including a surge in flights from the Middle East operated by Belarusian state-owned airlines.

After landing in Belarus, many of the passengers were escorted to the Lithuanian border by Belarusian security forces and forced to cross illegally, Lithuanian officials said.

Lithuania also accused Belarus of refusing to cooperate with its border services in preventing irregular crossings and said it is seeking compensation through the ICJ for alleged damages caused, including costs related to border reinforcement.

Tensions between the two countries have simmered since 2021 when thousands of people – mostly from the Middle East and Africa – began arriving at the borders of Lithuania, Poland and Latvia from Belarus.

Belarus had previously deported Middle Eastern refugees and migrants with more than 400 Iraqis repatriated to Baghdad on a charter flight from Minsk in November 2021.

That same year, a Human Rights Watch report accused Belarus of manufacturing the crisis, finding that “accounts of violence, inhuman and degrading treatment and coercion by Belarusian border guards were commonplace”.

European Union officials have also accused Minsk of “weaponising” migration in an effort to destabilise the bloc. The claims are strongly denied by Belarus.

In December, the EU approved emergency measures allowing member states bordering Belarus and Russia to temporarily suspend asylum rights in cases in which migration is being manipulated for political ends.